Chattel mortgages valid and duly regis tered under the laws of the state in which the property is situated at the time of the mortgage, will be held valid in another state to which the property is removed, although the regulations there are different ; Bank of United States v. Lee, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 107, 10 L. Ed. 81; Feurt v. Rowell, 62 Mo. 524; Barker v. Stacy, 25 Miss. 471; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Ohio St. 134, 70 Am. Dec. 62 ; Mar tin v. Hill, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 631; but see Handley v. Harris, 48 Kan. 606, 29 Pac. 1145, 17 L. R. A. 703, 30 Am. St. Rep. 322 ; Clough v. Kyne, 40 Ill. App. 234 ; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 140, 19 L. Ed. 109 ; and it will be enforced in the state to which the property has been removed, although it would have been invalid if made in that state ; Smith v. Hutchings, 30 Mo. 383 ; but it is said by Wharton (Conti. Laws § 317), that the law in regard to chattel mortgages is governed by the lex rei sitcs; that a lien is extinguished when goods are taken from the place where the lien was created to a place where such a lien is not recognized ; Whart. Conti. Laws § 318; McCabe v. Bly myre, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 615 (where a chattel mortgage made in Maryland was held in valid in Pennsylvania as against a bona fide purchaser without notice) ; and a Louisiana court refused to enforce a chattel mortgage made in another state, such mortgages being unknown in Louisiana ; Delop v. Windsor & Randolph, 26 La. Ann. 185.
The law of the sites governs a mortgage of chattels in one state, executed in anoth er ; Rorer, Int. St. L. 96 ; Jones, Chat. Mortg. § 305 ; Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N. H. 88 ; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 139, 19 L. Ed. 109 ; Denny v. Faulkner, 22 Kan. 89. See Ames Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512, 40 Am. Rep. 258 ; Tyler v. Strang, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 198 ; contra, Runyon v. Groshon, 12 N. J. Eq. 86 ; Blystone v. Burgett, 10 Ind. 28, 68 Am. Dec. 658. The same is true in the case of conditional sales ; Langworthy v. Little, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 109; Hervey v. Lo comotive Works, 93 U. S. 664, 23 L. Ed. 1003 ; Cleveland Machine Works v. Lang, 67 N. H. 348.
The lex Pori determines the remedies on the mortgage; Ferguson v. Clifford, 37 N. H. 86 ; contra, Story, Conti. Laws § 402 ; Mum ford v. Canty, 50 Ill. 370, 99 Am. Dec. 525 (where there appears to have been notice). See Wattson v. Campbell, 38 N. Y. 153, where a mortgage on a ship, made and shown to be invalid in Pennsylvania, was held invalid in New York ; Beaumont v. Yeatman, 8 Humphr. (Tenn.) 542.
The registration of chattel mortgages and transfer of government and local stocks are frequently made subjects of positive law, which then suspends the law of the domicil.
Where the mortgagor of chattels removes with them to another state, the mortgagee, to preserve his rights, need not again record the mortgage in such other state ; Keenan v. Stimson, 32 Minn. 377, 20 N. W. 364 ; Fergu son v. Clifford, 37 N. H. 87 ; Feurt v. Row
ell, 62 Mo. 524 ; Parr v. Brady, 37 N. J. L. 201. But in Alabama it must be recorded to preserve its validity ; Johnson v. Hughes, 89 Ala. 588, 8 South. 147.
As to whether such mortgages will be re spected in preference to claims of citizens of the state into which the property is re moved, it is held that they will; Jones v. Taylor, 30 Vt. 42, overruling Skiff v. Solace, 23 Vt. 279 ; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Ohio St. 134, 70 Am. Dec. 62 ; Martin v. Hill, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 631; Beaumont v. Yeatman, 8 Humphr. (Tenn.) 542. A chattel mortgage valid in the state where executed without change of possession protects the property mortgaged against an attachment in Ver mont, though in the possession of the mort gagor ; Taylor v. Boardman,, 25 Vt. 581; Nor ris v. Sowles, 57 Vt. 360.
Questions of priority of liens and other claims are, in general, to be determined by the leo rei sitte even in regard to personal property ; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 289, 3 L. Ed. 104 ; Olivier v. Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. (La.) 93 ; In re Miller's Estate, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 312, 24 Am. Dec. 345 ; Hammond v. Sto vall, 17 Ga. 491; Walker v. Roberts, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 561 ; Trapnall v. Richardson, 13 Ark. 543, 58 Am. Dec. 338. A chattel mortgage made in Canada, with possession delivered to the mortgagee, was held entitled to priority in Michigan, whither the property was taken without consent of the mortgagee, over a prior chattel mortgage in Michigan executed before the property was taken to Canada and recorded after its return; Vining v. Millar, 109 Mich. 205, 67 N. W. 126, 32 L. R. A. 442.
The existence of the lien will generally depend on the lev loci; Story, Confi. Laws §§ 322 b, 402 ; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 289, 3 L. Ed. 104. See note on extra-ter ritoriality of chattel mortgages, 17 L. R. A. 127.
Marriage comes under the general rule in regard to contracts, with some exceptions. See LEx Loci; 25 Amer. Law Rev. 82.
The scope of a marriage settlement made abroad is to be determined by the lev loci contractus; 1 Bro. P. C. 129 ; 2 M. & K. 513 ; where not repugnant to the Lenrei sifts; 31 E. L. & Eq. 443 ; De Pierres v. Thorn, 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 266.
When the contract for marriage is to be executed elsewhere, the place of execution becomes the locus contractus; 23 E. L. & Eq. 288. On the continent of Europe, capacity is usually governed by nationality, though in administering the rule the courts favor their own citizens ; in England it was governed by domicil, but now the courts have gone back to the decision in 3 P. D. 1, holding capacity is governed by law of place of ceremony ; and in America by the len loci; Com. v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 509. Hence it is quite unsafe for an American to marry a for eigner without a complete investigation of his capacity to marry according to his per sonal law. See an article by J. H. Beale, Jr., in 15 H. L. R. 382 ; MARRIAGE.